Are the sugars ribose and deoxyribose self assembling

Do you think they are more than microevolution? I see a bunch of different types of pigeons which show an amazing amount of variation, but I don't see anything which shows me they will eventually turn into anything other than a pigeon. Looks like selective breeding and even the Bible talks about selective breeding. That's how Jacob got all his speckled and spotted sheep and goats. I have no problem with these pictures.Now I'm sure the admin is going to say we are starting to get off the subject.

Yeah, we are getting off topic. Join me over in the new thread that I started - Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?Back to your regularly-scheduled discussion about early life chemistry. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

However, your "follow-up" question is utterly irrelevant - or at least rendered moot - if ribose or other complex sugars weren't required for the original replicators, isn't it? After all, the only thing we need is an inefficient non-biological replicator, hence PNA, etc.

Is there some particular reason you are fixated on a 50-year old experiment that I have already indicated was flawed because of the postulated atmospheric composition?* The key point in the Miller-Urey experiments was that biologically significant compounds could be formed naturally - an experimental verification of Oparin and Haldane's speculations. Doesn't particularly matter that such small amounts were produced. The point was they were produced. Quite a bit of experimentation has taken place since - and substantially more and more interesting compounds have been generated. I won't spam the forum with a long list of pubmed citations - you can check it out yourself. Try a search for Kobayashi, Krishnamurty or Orgel (or even Miller, who's still very much active).Oh well, maybe a couple:Ferris JP, Hill AR, Liu R, Orgel LE, 1996, "Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces" Nature, 381:59-61Freund, F, Staple A, Scoville J, 2001, "Organic protomolecule assembly in igneous minerals" PNAS, 98:2142-2147Krishnamurthy R, Arrhenius G, Echenmoser A, 1999, "Formation of glycolaldehyde phosphate from glyceraldehyde in aqueous solution", Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 29:333-354Mulkidjanian Y, Cherepanov DA, Galperin MY, 2003, "Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light" BMC Evol Biol. 3:12 This one's pretty cool. They used high-intensity UV light as an energy source (sort of like what was expected in the absence of ozone in the early atmosphere) to provide a high selection pressure that actually stimulated the formation of oligonucleotides.Anyway, the point being there are a lot of experiments going on out there, and a lot of very sharp people working on the problem. And a lot of compounds synthesized. Just where in all this chemistry is your deity? You misunderstood me. I stated PNA has not yet been completely synthesized under abiotic conditions. If you read the citation and abstract I provided Rei, you'd see that all of the necessary ingredients HAVE been synthesized. It's now just a question of figuring out how they get put together.*You're right on the reactants formed by the Miller-Urey system. I misspoke in my off-hand comment about purines, etc. That was another set of experiments. Teach me to make throw-away comments off the top of my head.

And how do you suggest this replicator becomes a cell able to replicate all its parts? How does it gain and use energy? Does it not have enzymes which perform all these functions for it, and if so where did they come from? And no one has still answered my point about osmosis. Every cell we have has to deal with osmosis. Did this first cell mysteriously have a contractile vacuole or did the miracles continue and it just coincidently developed a cell wall?I think scientists tend to make what sounds like very logical points about very small steps. Example, amino acids can be produced by gasses and lightning in a lab. But to then take each of those steps and put them together in a fully functioning, self regulating, self reproducing, energy gathering, energy converting (ATP), waste eliminating cell is just pure science fiction. If it were so simple it could have been done by now.I think it is time we admit that neither side can prove its point. Therefore evolution like creation becomes a religion. Even Steven Gould admitted this point.As British Biologist Harrison Matthews said in his forward to the 1971 edition of Darwin's origin of Species

Good point.

thanks

What does this have to do with abiogenesis? You're moving the goalposts here talking about cells. I'll be quite happy to discuss the formation of the first protocells from naturally occurring phospholipid bilayers, etc, or any of the other possibilities (including bioconcentration on minerals or through energy gradients around submarine hydrothermal vents, etc) in another thread. That's a whole 'nother discussion, and a whole 'nother long list of experiments and pubmed citations . Unless you concede that the gap between basic molecules and the first replicators is now small enough that you give up on your argument that abiogenesis is impossible, I'd say we haven't even come close to jumping past the chemistry to starting to talk about cell biology.As to the question about enzymes - have you misunderstood what "autocatalysis" means? It means that the molecule replicates itself - it doesn't require external catalysts like enzymes. It gloms on to available molecules and/or chemicals do copy itself all on its own - basic chemistry. Erm, isn't that precisely what you want to see - "very small steps"? Isn't that the most logical way of going about it? If you can produce all the bits and pieces in a lab, I'd say it's only a question of time and the right reagents until all those bits and pieces get put together. If this is where your diety resides, it's a very tiny living space for a being of cosmological significance and power, n'est-ce pas? What did I tell you about the value to this discussion of out-of-context or out-of-date quotations? Try using something a bit more recent - like from something resembling a science journal. Also, you might try citing what Gould actually said where he proclaims evolution is a religion. I mean, he wrote an entire book about non-overlapping magisteria between science and religion ("Rock of Ages", Ballantine Books, 1999), so it would be odd if he were to conflate the two...

Which point was that, O Mike the Wiz? Are you now joing theman as keith's self appointed cheering section, or do you have something substantive to offer here?

Lol,
Is this coming from that amusing chap who agrees with dodgy statements of faith which hold no garbage to speak of bar speculative creo idol nonsense.
Now this is off topic! maybe you should beat me up in my own topic 'no topic'.

Hmm, my Universal Translator (tm) couldn't make hide nor hair of this statement. Is this an entry in the Brad MacFall post-alike contest? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what exactly you're on about? I haven't seen any actual content in that thread to get interested in "beating you up" about. OTOH, you voluntarily appeared in this one, so the basic assumption is you have something to say about abiotic chemistry. Would you like to comment on what role organic sulfur compounds may have played in the genesis of chemoautolithotrophs? Or better, why it couldn't have played such a role? Perhaps you could speculate why I might have posted a reference to non-biological formation of glycolaldehyde phosphate - i.e., why would this be significant?Otherwise, my speculation that you're playing cheering section in response to a post in which you have no clue what the poster is talking about is probably accurate, yes?

I fail to see how you reach the conclusion. I was offering my support for changes within kind, it confuses me why you had to comment fullstop. Can't I suggest a good point?

I see. Please indicate where in the post you originally responded to there was any discussion of this? keith was talking about the formation of the first cells - and brought up good (albeit off-topic for this thread) points that would need to be addressed in a discussion of cell formation/evolution of the first protocells. "Changes within kind" (whatever that means) doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all. Try again.

I think the quote was actually from Michael Ruse, not Gould. This is the quote. 8 Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. As I stated earlier I am already aware of the pieces. I’ve seen the citations. A phospholipid bilayer is very far from a cell wouldn’t you say? You may as well say the shell of a car is a car. Where are all the internal parts which make the cell a cell? Where are the protein channels which regulate what enters and what leaves a cell? Where are the carbohydrates associated with cell membranes?Again, a few parts do not a cell make. Why would I want to see small steps? My premise is that there were no small steps. Something besides chance had to put it all together.And I still don’t know how those protocells could have dealt with osmosis when they magically surrounded biologically significant molecules in sufficient amounts to accomplish anything?

message 31 I agreed with, that is all.